Now that the movie is over I have a question for all of you. What was the purpose of Nanny in this play? She was only seen a few times throughout this movie, at the beginning, talking with waffles, and then at the end. (yes there were a few more times, but those are the most memorable.) I was just curious as to what her role in this play was? I also want to know what character she resembles in The Cherry Orchard.
Personally, I thought that Nanny was a little bit like Firs. They were only there a couple of times, yet they had something interesting to tell the family. They were kind of that character off in the corner who has a great significance to the plot, but I just can't figure out what Nanny's significance is. - szd-c Mar 10, 2008
I think we would have an easier time of discerning the Nanny's significance if we had read the play, but I too found her very similar to Firs but also the the nanny in The Cherry Orchard. In either case, they are remnants left over from childhood or the time of serfs that are no longer really needed. They are no longer useful to the family beyond providing comfort and support, as the nanny does for Sonya in the end of the play. They also serve some comedic purpose, like Firs's mumbling or this Nanny's clucking after chickens. The Nanny, though a small role, may fall into that same distinction between the fall of the old aristocracy and the aging serfs who grew up in that time. On another note, though, the Nanny is one of the few characters who is actually happy in Uncle Vanya. She is content with her place in life and actually looks forward to returning to the old ways, simpler times and simpler fare. In a play full of longing and hopelessness, these small comments shine like little rays of light in the overall scheme of the play. - AHa-c Mar 10, 2008
I agree with AHa that Nanny provides comedic purpose. I acutally think this was one of her most important function. Granted, it is important to have a character to connect to the past and provide the truth for the characters, but this is a heavy play to begin with. All in all this play is sad. Without a character like Nanny there would be nothing to lift the spirits of the audience at least a little bit and people wouldn't enjoy the play. The audience would just be depressed the whole time, not entertained. There needs to be some sort of tension breaker. Comparing the two plays, Chekov seems to make the character that provides the comic relief also be the character who provides many of the truths. In Vonya that character was Nanny and Cherry Orchard it was Firs. It is usually easier to provide (and take!) truth when it is coated in humor. - adi-c Mar 10, 2008
I disagree that Nanny serves the same purpose as Firs. I think that Firs has immense symbolic as well as comedic purposes in "The Cherry Orchard," neither of which I saw in Nanny in the movie. True, Nanny did stir a giggle when she clucked after the chickens but that left such a minor imprint in my mind that I didn't even remember it until AHa mentioned it. On the other hand, you really cannot read "The Cherry Orchard" and not remember Firs at the end of the play. His biggest purpose is the connection to the string breaking and the Liberation. Heck, the entire play ends with Firs implied death. How can that not be a significant role? Firs ties the play to the past, something that I see no trace of in Nanny. Sure, I mean, she's old, so that could be a simple tie to the past, but there are no deeper meanings mentioned. I think that without a doubt, Firs is much more significant than Nanny is. - Kho-c Mar 11, 2008
I agree that First is much more significant than the Nanny because he is symbolic for something, unlike the Nanny. Firs symbolizes the end of the poor peasant/serf dependant on their master. However, the only role Nanny appears to play in "Uncle Vanya" is that of a mediator, someone who wants to keep things peaceful. While it is true that she is old, there is nothing tragic about her character and her purpose is not to symbolize the past. Firs left a lasting impact on the reader, but the Nanny was just another character. - KSm-c Mar 11, 2008
When i was watching the movie I was trying my very hardest to link the book to the movie. I thought that the nanny was similar to Firs. I do realize that Firs had more significance and importance to themes in the book, but I could see some similarities in the nanny. I can't remember her line exactly, but she talks about how it used to be tea at seven, lunch and noon, and then dinner. Firs was just like that he would talk about how it used to be this and used to be that. I was linking them only based on simple character traits not really their role in the play or in the movie. They were both workers in the families and they were both teh nostalgic senile type. if you thinnk about it that way then they were similar. They are quite different though when you think of the purpose they serve to the author or director. In the play, Firs symbolized the past of Russia and the place of serfs in society. He was also very important at the end when he dies along with the orchard. The nanny was really only there to be a grandmother figure to sonya and the others and not much else.- JJa-c Mar 11, 2008
Nanny seemed to be the solid, stable one who took care everyone. She was the one that the doctor talked to in the beginning - he shared his troubles with her and she was his sounding board. She was the one who was able to make the professor settle down and go to bed. When Sonya was upset, she comforted her and was there for her. While I do not think she was supposed to be linked to Firs, they do share some similarities. They both were kept around becasue they were loved, not because they had a really important purpose. They both had their comic moments (like when Nanny was calling the chickens). But to me, this just seems like typical old person behavior - a little loopy but you still gotta love them. But I have to agree with what some of the others have been saying. I think Fir's role in The Cherry Orchard had a greater purpose and meaning than Nanny's role in Vanya. - MBe-c Mar 11, 2008
I not exactly sure if the Nanny and Firs really played the same role, and I'm not sure if I agree with MBe's comment that "they were loved." I believe Firs played an essential role in the theme of the play. He was the serf that was tied to the land and finally given his freedom, but he had already spend so much blood, sweat, and tears on the estate that this was his home and his life's work. Even though he was able to travel and move and marry, he didn't because he psychologically couldn't change and adjust to his "new" status and position the world. I agree that Nanny was a similar character in the fact that she didn't really do much, but just sort of hung around, but I didn't get the same feeling about serfdom in Uncle Vanya. In addition, I don't know if Firs was actually loved because they didn't even bother to check that he didn't go to the hospital. Any other comments? - kva-c Mar 12, 2008
Well, we know that Nanny was definitely loved because when Sonya is talking to the doctor, he says that Nanny is one of the only people who he has affection for. Though he loves nobody else, he has a special affection for Nanny. In the Cherry Orchard, as you said kva, the people didn't really care for Firs because they didn't check to see that he got to the hospital, and then he dies after they leave him. To me, that doesn't seem like love. Nanny had people to take care of her and the people on whom Firs relied left him alone to his end. After all this, I'm still trying to figure out their significances. Firs had the tie to the past, but Nanny was the loving, old lady who everybody loved. What do those fact mean, though? I still don't know their significances. - kkr-c Mar 12, 2008
I thought that Nanny was a cute character. She was one character that was always willing to give hugs or begging someone to stay or telling them that it was late and should go to bed - she was a caretaker for everyone in the house. Firs was similar to Nanny in the way that you could just tell that both of them had big hearts willing to love and be loved. They put their whole hearts into whatever they were doing, whether work or just in their actions towards the other members around them. I'm not if they served the same purpose, because they were different characters in different settings and everything, but essentially I would say so. We all have someone in our lives like Nanny or Firs I'm sure. They are that quiet older member of your family or family friend, yet you know that they will always be willing to comfort you if you come to them. They don't need to be in the spotlight to know that they are loved. Both Nanny and Firs may be the more quieter characters with smaller roles in the play, but I think that they are also two of the more admirable, two that maybe we can learn more from if we just take a deeper look. - AGe-c Mar 13, 2008
I think that the nanny was in the play to add a character that just went with the flow of whatever was happening and was content with whatever life she was living. Most of the characters were resolved to live in misery, while a few were doing whatever they could to break out and find some deeper meaning in life. The nanny seemed perfectly happy with a life without meaning, and did not complain about her lot in life, or try to change the situation that she is in. She does seem to represent the old generation of people that are not really moving forward in life, but she doesn't seem to have any realization that she's treading water. - jko-c Mar 13, 2008
I don't think that we need to, or can, find an accurate comparison for Nanny in "The Cherry Orchard." Though both were written by Chekhov, I think he is capable enough to create unique works and unique characters within his work. Assuming that Nanny must have a parallel in his other work seems pointless to me, because I thought that, though some of Chekhov's ideas remain the same, the two plays are quite different. A character like Nanny would not have fit in in the other play because she serves as a stabilizer, quite content with her life, looking neither forward nor backward. She just stayed put, and in "The Cherry Orchard," I felt that the ending stressed the importance of moving forward in life. Similarly, I don't think that Firs could be placed in "Uncle Vanya," because, though Vanya and other's lamented the past, they found no hope there, or anywhere. Firs' glorified the past, something that gave him a purpose and source of joy in life, while "Uncle Vanya," in my opinion, focused on the fruitless quest for joy in the characters' lives. Therefore, I think that fundamental differences in the two plays make it impossible to link them on every level. - lsi-c Mar 13, 2008
Personally, I thought that Nanny was a little bit like Firs. They were only there a couple of times, yet they had something interesting to tell the family. They were kind of that character off in the corner who has a great significance to the plot, but I just can't figure out what Nanny's significance is.
-
I think we would have an easier time of discerning the Nanny's significance if we had read the play, but I too found her very similar to Firs but also the the nanny in The Cherry Orchard. In either case, they are remnants left over from childhood or the time of serfs that are no longer really needed. They are no longer useful to the family beyond providing comfort and support, as the nanny does for Sonya in the end of the play. They also serve some comedic purpose, like Firs's mumbling or this Nanny's clucking after chickens. The Nanny, though a small role, may fall into that same distinction between the fall of the old aristocracy and the aging serfs who grew up in that time. On another note, though, the Nanny is one of the few characters who is actually happy in Uncle Vanya. She is content with her place in life and actually looks forward to returning to the old ways, simpler times and simpler fare. In a play full of longing and hopelessness, these small comments shine like little rays of light in the overall scheme of the play. -
I agree with AHa that Nanny provides comedic purpose. I acutally think this was one of her most important function. Granted, it is important to have a character to connect to the past and provide the truth for the characters, but this is a heavy play to begin with. All in all this play is sad. Without a character like Nanny there would be nothing to lift the spirits of the audience at least a little bit and people wouldn't enjoy the play. The audience would just be depressed the whole time, not entertained. There needs to be some sort of tension breaker. Comparing the two plays, Chekov seems to make the character that provides the comic relief also be the character who provides many of the truths. In Vonya that character was Nanny and Cherry Orchard it was Firs. It is usually easier to provide (and take!) truth when it is coated in humor.
-
I disagree that Nanny serves the same purpose as Firs. I think that Firs has immense symbolic as well as comedic purposes in "The Cherry Orchard," neither of which I saw in Nanny in the movie. True, Nanny did stir a giggle when she clucked after the chickens but that left such a minor imprint in my mind that I didn't even remember it until AHa mentioned it. On the other hand, you really cannot read "The Cherry Orchard" and not remember Firs at the end of the play. His biggest purpose is the connection to the string breaking and the Liberation. Heck, the entire play ends with Firs implied death. How can that not be a significant role? Firs ties the play to the past, something that I see no trace of in Nanny. Sure, I mean, she's old, so that could be a simple tie to the past, but there are no deeper meanings mentioned. I think that without a doubt, Firs is much more significant than Nanny is. -
I agree that First is much more significant than the Nanny because he is symbolic for something, unlike the Nanny. Firs symbolizes the end of the poor peasant/serf dependant on their master. However, the only role Nanny appears to play in "Uncle Vanya" is that of a mediator, someone who wants to keep things peaceful. While it is true that she is old, there is nothing tragic about her character and her purpose is not to symbolize the past. Firs left a lasting impact on the reader, but the Nanny was just another character.
-
When i was watching the movie I was trying my very hardest to link the book to the movie. I thought that the nanny was similar to Firs. I do realize that Firs had more significance and importance to themes in the book, but I could see some similarities in the nanny. I can't remember her line exactly, but she talks about how it used to be tea at seven, lunch and noon, and then dinner. Firs was just like that he would talk about how it used to be this and used to be that. I was linking them only based on simple character traits not really their role in the play or in the movie. They were both workers in the families and they were both teh nostalgic senile type. if you thinnk about it that way then they were similar. They are quite different though when you think of the purpose they serve to the author or director. In the play, Firs symbolized the past of Russia and the place of serfs in society. He was also very important at the end when he dies along with the orchard. The nanny was really only there to be a grandmother figure to sonya and the others and not much else.-
Nanny seemed to be the solid, stable one who took care everyone. She was the one that the doctor talked to in the beginning - he shared his troubles with her and she was his sounding board. She was the one who was able to make the professor settle down and go to bed. When Sonya was upset, she comforted her and was there for her. While I do not think she was supposed to be linked to Firs, they do share some similarities. They both were kept around becasue they were loved, not because they had a really important purpose. They both had their comic moments (like when Nanny was calling the chickens). But to me, this just seems like typical old person behavior - a little loopy but you still gotta love them. But I have to agree with what some of the others have been saying. I think Fir's role in The Cherry Orchard had a greater purpose and meaning than Nanny's role in Vanya.
-
I not exactly sure if the Nanny and Firs really played the same role, and I'm not sure if I agree with MBe's comment that "they were loved." I believe Firs played an essential role in the theme of the play. He was the serf that was tied to the land and finally given his freedom, but he had already spend so much blood, sweat, and tears on the estate that this was his home and his life's work. Even though he was able to travel and move and marry, he didn't because he psychologically couldn't change and adjust to his "new" status and position the world. I agree that Nanny was a similar character in the fact that she didn't really do much, but just sort of hung around, but I didn't get the same feeling about serfdom in Uncle Vanya. In addition, I don't know if Firs was actually loved because they didn't even bother to check that he didn't go to the hospital. Any other comments?
-
Well, we know that Nanny was definitely loved because when Sonya is talking to the doctor, he says that Nanny is one of the only people who he has affection for. Though he loves nobody else, he has a special affection for Nanny. In the Cherry Orchard, as you said kva, the people didn't really care for Firs because they didn't check to see that he got to the hospital, and then he dies after they leave him. To me, that doesn't seem like love. Nanny had people to take care of her and the people on whom Firs relied left him alone to his end. After all this, I'm still trying to figure out their significances. Firs had the tie to the past, but Nanny was the loving, old lady who everybody loved. What do those fact mean, though? I still don't know their significances.
-
I thought that Nanny was a cute character. She was one character that was always willing to give hugs or begging someone to stay or telling them that it was late and should go to bed - she was a caretaker for everyone in the house. Firs was similar to Nanny in the way that you could just tell that both of them had big hearts willing to love and be loved. They put their whole hearts into whatever they were doing, whether work or just in their actions towards the other members around them. I'm not if they served the same purpose, because they were different characters in different settings and everything, but essentially I would say so. We all have someone in our lives like Nanny or Firs I'm sure. They are that quiet older member of your family or family friend, yet you know that they will always be willing to comfort you if you come to them. They don't need to be in the spotlight to know that they are loved. Both Nanny and Firs may be the more quieter characters with smaller roles in the play, but I think that they are also two of the more admirable, two that maybe we can learn more from if we just take a deeper look. -
I think that the nanny was in the play to add a character that just went with the flow of whatever was happening and was content with whatever life she was living. Most of the characters were resolved to live in misery, while a few were doing whatever they could to break out and find some deeper meaning in life. The nanny seemed perfectly happy with a life without meaning, and did not complain about her lot in life, or try to change the situation that she is in. She does seem to represent the old generation of people that are not really moving forward in life, but she doesn't seem to have any realization that she's treading water. -
I don't think that we need to, or can, find an accurate comparison for Nanny in "The Cherry Orchard." Though both were written by Chekhov, I think he is capable enough to create unique works and unique characters within his work. Assuming that Nanny must have a parallel in his other work seems pointless to me, because I thought that, though some of Chekhov's ideas remain the same, the two plays are quite different. A character like Nanny would not have fit in in the other play because she serves as a stabilizer, quite content with her life, looking neither forward nor backward. She just stayed put, and in "The Cherry Orchard," I felt that the ending stressed the importance of moving forward in life. Similarly, I don't think that Firs could be placed in "Uncle Vanya," because, though Vanya and other's lamented the past, they found no hope there, or anywhere. Firs' glorified the past, something that gave him a purpose and source of joy in life, while "Uncle Vanya," in my opinion, focused on the fruitless quest for joy in the characters' lives. Therefore, I think that fundamental differences in the two plays make it impossible to link them on every level. -